Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 related hospital admission in the Netherlands by medical risk condition: A test-negative case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Vaccination remains crucial in reducing COVID-19 hospitalizations and mitigating the strain on healthcare systems. We conducted a multicenter study to assess vaccine effectiveness (VE) of primary and booster vaccination against hospitalization and to identify subgroups with reduced VE. METHODS: From March to July 2021 and October 2021 to January 2022, a test-negative case-control study was conducted in nine Dutch hospitals. The study included adults eligible for COVID-19 vaccination who were hospitalized with respiratory symptoms. Cases tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within 14 days prior to or 48 h after admission, while controls tested negative. Logistic regression was used to calculate VE, adjusting for calendar week, sex, age, nursing home residency and comorbidity. We explored COVID-19 case characteristics and whether there are subgroups with less effective protection by vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalization. RESULTS: Between October 2021 to January 2022, when the Delta variant was dominant, 335 cases and 277 controls were included. VE of primary and booster vaccination was 78 % (95 % CI: 65-86), and 89 % (95 % CI: 69-96), respectively. Using data from both study periods, including 700 cases and 511 controls, VE of primary vaccination was significantly reduced in those aged 60+ and patients with malignancy, chronic cardiac disease or an immunocompromising condition. CONCLUSION: Although VE against hospitalization was 78% and increased to 89% after boosting during the Delta-dominant study period, VE was lower in certain high risk groups, for which indirect protection or other protective measures might be of added importance.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 related hospital admission in the Netherlands: A test-negative case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Real-world vaccine effectiveness (VE) estimates are essential to identify potential groups at higher risk of break-through infections and to guide policy. We assessed the VE of COVID-19 vaccination against COVID-19 hospitalization, while adjusting and stratifying for patient characteristics. METHODS: We performed a test-negative case-control study in six Dutch hospitals. The study population consisted of adults eligible for COVID-19 vaccination hospitalized between May 1 and June 28, 2021 with respiratory symptoms. Cases were defined as patients who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR during the first 48 h of admission or within 14 days prior to hospital admission. Controls were patients tested negative at admission and did not have a positive test during the 2 weeks prior to hospitalization. VE was calculated using multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for calendar week, sex, age, comorbidity and nursing home residency. Subgroup analysis was performed for age, sex and different comorbidities. Secondary endpoints were ICU-admission and mortality. RESULTS: 379 cases and 255 controls were included of whom 157 (18%) were vaccinated prior to admission. Five cases (1%) and 40 controls (16%) were fully vaccinated (VE: 93%; 95% CI: 81 - 98), and 40 cases (11%) and 70 controls (27%) were partially vaccinated (VE: 70%; 95% CI: 50-82). A strongly protective effect of vaccination was found in all comorbidity subgroups. No ICU-admission or mortality were reported among fully vaccinated cases. Of unvaccinated cases, mortality was 10% and 19% was admitted at the ICU. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 vaccination provides a strong protective effect against COVID-19 related hospital admission, in patients with and without comorbidity.

Retrospective analysis of endocarditis patients to investigate the eligibility for oral antibiotic treatment in routine daily practice.

BACKGROUND: According to the current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology, patients with left-sided infective endocarditis are treated with intravenous antibiotics for 4-6 weeks, leading to extensive hospital stay and high costs. Recently, the Partial Oral Treatment of Endocarditis (POET) trial suggested that partial oral treatment is effective and safe in selected patients. Here, we investigated if such patients are seen in our daily clinical practice. METHODS: We enrolled 119 adult patients diagnosed with left-sided infective endocarditis in a retrospective, observational study. We identified those that would be eligible for switching to partial oral antibiotic treatment as defined in the POET trial (e.g. stable clinical condition without signs of infection). Secondary objectives were to provide insight into the time until each patient was eligible for partial oral treatment, and to determine parameters of longer hospital stay and/or need for extended intravenous antibiotic treatment. RESULTS: Applying the POET selection criteria, the condition of 38 patients (32%) was stable enough to switch them to partial oral treatment, of which 18 (47.3%), 8 (21.1%), 9 (23.7%) and 3 patients (7.9%) were eligible for switching after 10, 14, 21 days or 28 days of intravenous treatment, respectively. CONCLUSION: One-third of patients who presented with left-sided endocarditis in routine clinical practice were possible candidates for switching to partial oral treatment. This could have major implications for both the patient's quality of life and healthcare costs. These results offer an interesting perspective for implementation of such a strategy, which should be accompanied by a prospective cost-effectiveness analysis.

[Dutch guideline on necrotizing soft tissue infections]. / Richtlijn 'Necrotiserende wekedeleninfecties'.

In 2018 the first Dutch guideline on necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTIs) was drafted. Its aim is to standardize the care of this disease in order to reduce variation, and thereby improve the quality of care. This guideline is a benchmark for all healthcare providers who deal with this devastating disease; it focuses on diagnostics, treatment options and organization of care. Given the low incidence, the complexity and the fulminant course of NSTIs, it is important to ensure continuous specialized care. Therefore it is recommended to make regional agreements about referral to specialized centres. Surgical exploration remains the gold standard for diagnosis. The empirical antibiotic regimen depends on if the onset of disease is community or nosocomial, and if its aetiology is a monomicrobial (type I) or a polymicrobial (type II). The guideline recommends that intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) therapy be started if gram staining reveals streptococci. IVIg must be discontinued if group-A streptococcus is excluded as a causative agent.

Early discontinuation of empirical antibiotic treatment in neutropenic patients with acute myeloid leukaemia and high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines advocate empirical antibiotic treatment (EAT) in haematological patients with febrile neutropenia. However, the optimal duration of EAT is unknown. In 2011, we have introduced a protocol, promoting discontinuation of carbapenems as EAT after 3 days in most patients and discouraging the standard use of vancomycin. This study assesses the effect of introducing this protocol on carbapenem and vancomycin use in high-risk haematological patients and its safety. METHODS: A retrospective before-after study was performed comparing a cohort from 2007 to 2011 (period I, before restrictive EAT use) with a cohort from 2011 to 2014 (period II, restrictive EAT use). Neutropenic episodes related to chemotherapy or stem cell transplantation (SCT) in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) or high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were analysed. The primary outcome was the use of carbapenems and vancomycin as EAT during neutropenia, expressed as days of therapy (DOT)/100 neutropenic days and analysed with interrupted time series (ITS). Also the use of other antibiotics was analysed. Safety measurements included 30-day mortality, ICU admittance within 30 days after start of EAT and positive blood cultures with carbapenem-susceptible microorganisms. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-two neutropenic episodes with a median duration of 18 days were analysed, involving 201 patients. ITS analysis showed decreased carbapenem use with a step change of - 16.1 DOT/100 neutropenic days (95% CI - 26.77 to - 1.39) and an overall reduction of 21.6% (8.7 DOT/100 neutropenic days). Vancomycin use decreased with a step change of - 13.7 DOT/100 neutropenic days (95% CI - 23.75 to - 3.0) and an overall reduction of 54.7% (14.6 DOT/100 neutropenic days). The use of all antibiotics combined decreased from 155.6 to 138 DOT/100 neutropenic days, a reduction of 11.3%. No deaths directly related to early discontinuation of EAT were identified, also no notable difference in ICU-admission (9/116 in period I, 9/152 in period II) and positive blood cultures (4/116 in period I, 2/152 in period II) was detected. CONCLUSION: The introduction of a protocol promoting restrictive use of EAT resulted in reduction of carbapenem and vancomycin use and appears to be safe in AML or high-risk MDS patients with febrile neutropenia during chemotherapy or SCT.